⚗️ Ratio and proportion mastery — Higher

Answer key

1. (a) 4:3:1 — Convert every part to the same unit: 2 m = 200 cm, so the ratio is 200 : 150 : 50. Dividing all three parts by 50 gives 4 : 3 : 1. Writing 2 : 150 : 50 has not converted 2 m into centimetres, so the units do not match. Writing 3 : 4 : 1 has the first two parts the wrong way round. Writing 4 : 3 : 2 comes from an arithmetic slip on the last part: 50 ÷ 50 = 1, not 2.
2. (c) a decrease of 25% — Method: use multipliers. An increase of 50% is × 1.5 and a decrease of 50% is × 0.5. Working: 1.5 × 0.5 = 0.75, so the final price is 75% of the original. Answer: a decrease of 25%. The distractors: no change comes from assuming +50% and −50% cancel; a decrease of 50% comes from applying only the second change; an increase of 25% has the direction wrong.
3. (d) 400 — The area scale factor is the length scale factor squared: 20² = 400, so the real car's surface area is 400 times the model's. 20 comes from using the length scale factor itself, without squaring it. 8000 comes from cubing the length scale factor (20³), instead of squaring it — cubing is the rule for volume, not area. 40 comes from doubling the length scale factor (2 × 20), instead of squaring it.
4. (b) 12 days — This is inverse proportion: fewer painters take longer. Multiply the original numbers to find the total painter-days needed: 8 × 6 = 48 painter-days. Divide by the new number of painters: 48 ÷ 4 = 12 days. Working out 6 × 4 ÷ 8 = 3 days treats it as direct proportion, as if fewer painters needed less time. Stopping at 48 gives the total painter-days, not the number of days. Working out 6 + (8 − 4) = 10 days adds the change in the number of painters straight onto the number of days, treating painters and days as the same kind of quantity. 4 painters take 12 days.
5. (c) 448.00 US dollars — Method: multiply the amount in pounds by the exchange rate. Working: £350 × 1.28 = 448.00 US dollars. Wrong options: 273.44 US dollars comes from dividing by the rate instead of multiplying (350 ÷ 1.28); 351.28 US dollars comes from adding the rate to the amount instead of multiplying; 4,480.00 US dollars comes from a decimal-point slip, using 12.8 instead of 1.28.
6. (b) 80 — Method: the difference between 40% and 25% of the number is 15% of the number, and that difference is 12. Working: 15% of the number is 12, so 1% of the number is 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8, and the number is 0.8 × 100 = 80. Check: 40% of 80 is 32, 25% of 80 is 20, and 32 − 20 = 12. Answer: 80. The distractors: 30 comes from solving 40% of the number = 12; 48 comes from solving 25% of the number = 12; 15 is the percentage difference written as the answer.
7. (b) 15 — Find the multiplier connecting y to x: 10 ÷ 4 = 2.5. Then apply it to the new value of x: 2.5 × 6 = 15. Working out 10 + (6 − 4) = 12 adds the change in x straight onto y instead of scaling proportionally. Working out 10 × 6 = 60 multiplies the given y-value by the new x-value directly, without finding the multiplier first. Writing 10 keeps y the same as before, not realising it must change with x. When x = 6, y = 15.
8. (d) 2:3:5 — The highest common factor of 12, 18 and 30 is 6. Divide every part by 6: 12 ÷ 6 = 2, 18 ÷ 6 = 3, 30 ÷ 6 = 5, giving 2 : 3 : 5. Dividing by 2 instead of 6 gives 6 : 9 : 15, which still shares a common factor of 3, so it is not fully simplified. Dividing by 3 instead of 6 gives 4 : 6 : 10, which still shares a common factor of 2, so it is not fully simplified either. Swapping the first two parts gives 3 : 2 : 5, the parts in the wrong order.
9. (c) 54 — Method: y = kx, so k = y ÷ x. Working: k = 18 ÷ 5 = 3.6. At x = 15: y = 3.6 × 15 = 54. Wrong options: 28 comes from adding the change in x (10) onto y instead of scaling; 6 comes from treating the relationship as inverse proportion (k = 5 × 18 = 90, then y = 90 ÷ 15 = 6); 60 comes from rounding the constant up to 4 instead of using 3.6.
10. (d) 3 : 2 : 5 — The highest common factor of 45, 30 and 75 is 15. Divide each part by 15: 45 ÷ 15 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 75 ÷ 15 = 5, giving 3 : 2 : 5. Giving 9 : 6 : 15 divides by 5, a common factor but not the highest one. Giving 15 : 10 : 25 divides by 3 only, even further from simplest form. Giving 2 : 3 : 5 has the first two parts swapped.
11. (c) 1 : 27 — The edge lengths are in the ratio 2 : 6, which simplifies to 1 : 3. Volumes scale with the cube of the length ratio, so the volume ratio is 1³ : 3³ = 1 : 27. Giving 1 : 3 uses the length ratio without cubing it. Giving 1 : 9 squares the length ratio, which is the rule for areas, instead of cubing it, which is the rule for volumes. Giving 27 : 1 has the ratio the right way round for larger to smaller, not smaller to larger as the question asks.
12. (c) 30 km — First convert 1 hour 15 minutes to hours: 15 minutes is a quarter of an hour, so the time is 1.25 hours. Then multiply by the speed: 24 × 1.25 = 30 km. Reading 15 minutes as 0.15 hours (writing the minutes after the decimal point instead of as a fraction of 60) gives 24 × 1.15 = 27.6 km. Working out 24 × 75 = 1800 multiplies by the number of minutes instead of converting to hours first. Working out 24 ÷ 1.25 = 19.2 divides by the time instead of multiplying. The cyclist travels 30 km.
13. (a) Yes — the cost per metre is £1.50 each time — Direct proportion holds if the cost per metre is the same every time. Check each pair: 3.00 ÷ 2 = 1.50, 6.00 ÷ 4 = 1.50, and 10.50 ÷ 7 = 1.50. All three give the same rate, £1.50 per metre, so the data does show direct proportion. Saying only that the cost increases as the length increases is not enough on its own — many non-proportional relationships also increase, so this reason does not prove proportion. Misreading 10.50 ÷ 7 as 1.05 by misplacing the decimal point gives a false mismatch that is not actually there. Requiring every length to be a double of another confuses a special case (doubling) with the general test, which is that the rate itself stays constant. The data does show direct proportion, at £1.50 per metre.
14. (d) 20 km/h — Method: average speed = total distance ÷ total time, with the time written in hours. Working: 1 hour 30 minutes = 1.5 hours, and 30 ÷ 1.5 = 20. Answer: 20 km/h. The distractors: 45 km/h comes from multiplying 30 by 1.5 instead of dividing; 15 km/h comes from dividing by 2, as if the ride had taken 2 hours; 30 km/h comes from dividing by the whole hour only and ignoring the extra 30 minutes.
15. (b) £13,860 — Method: apply the first year's percentage decrease, then apply the second year's percentage decrease to the new value. Working: after the first year, the car is worth £17,500 × 0.88. Multiplying this result by 0.90 gives the value at the end of the second year, £13,860. Answer: £13,860. £13,650 comes from adding the two percentages together (12% + 10% = 22%) and applying a single 22% decrease, £17,500 × 0.78 = £13,650, instead of applying the decreases one after the other. £15,750 comes from applying only the second year's 10% decrease to the original price, forgetting the first year's decrease entirely, £17,500 × 0.90 = £15,750. £15,400 comes from applying only the first year's 12% decrease and stopping there, forgetting to apply the second year's decrease at all.
16. (c) 150% — Percentage = (180,000 ÷ 120,000) × 100 = 150%.
17. (d) 25 minutes — Method: find the time for one kilometre, then multiply by the number of kilometres — the unitary method with a rate. Working: 10 ÷ 2 = 5 minutes per km, and 5 × 5 = 25. Answer: 25 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from multiplying the 10 minutes by 2, the distance in the given rate, instead of by the scale factor 2.5; 50 minutes comes from multiplying 10 by 5, treating the 10 minutes as the time for a single kilometre; 15 minutes comes from adding the 5 km on to the 10 minutes, adding quantities that are not the same kind.
18. (a) 80 km/h — Average speed = total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 45 + 75 = 120 km. Total time = 30 minutes + 1 hour = 1.5 hours. 120 ÷ 1.5 = 80 km/h. 60 km/h comes from treating the 30 minutes as a whole hour, giving a total time of 2 hours instead of 1.5 (120 ÷ 2). 82.5 km/h comes from averaging the two separate speeds (45 ÷ 0.5 = 90 km/h and 75 ÷ 1 = 75 km/h, then (90 + 75) ÷ 2) instead of using total distance over total time. 75 km/h comes from using only the second part of the journey (75 km in 1 hour) and ignoring the first part.
19. (a) 8:1 — Multiply both parts of the ratio by 4 to clear the fraction: 2 × 4 = 8 and 1/4 × 4 = 1, giving 8 : 1. Getting 1 : 8 has the two parts the wrong way round. Getting 2 : 4 comes from writing down the denominator of the fraction (4) as the second part instead of multiplying through by it. Getting 8 : 4 comes from multiplying only the first part of the ratio by 4 and leaving the second part as the fraction's denominator.
20. (b) Car A, 50 km/h — Method: speed = distance ÷ time for each car, then compare. Working: Car A = 150 ÷ 3 = 50 km/h. Car B = 180 ÷ 4 = 45 km/h. Since 50 > 45, Car A is faster, travelling at 50 km/h. Wrong options: Car B, 45 km/h correctly finds Car B's speed but wrongly names the slower car as faster; Car A, 45 km/h picks the correct car but uses Car B's speed by mistake; Car B, 50 km/h picks the wrong car but uses Car A's correct speed value.
21. (c) 4 km — Since signal strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, S = k/d². Using d = 2, S = 20: 2² = 4, so 20 = k ÷ 4, giving k = 20 × 4 = 80. The equation is S = 80/d². When S = 5: d² = 80 ÷ 5 = 16, so d = 4 (taking the positive root, since distance cannot be negative). Stopping at d² = 16 without taking the square root leaves 16, the square of the distance, not the distance itself. Treating the relationship as inversely proportional to distance itself, rather than to its square, gives k = 20 × 2 = 40 and then d = 40 ÷ 5 = 8, a different relationship. Multiplying by S instead of dividing by it when isolating d² gives d² = 80 × 5 = 400 and d = 20, the wrong operation. The distance at which the signal strength is 5 units is 4 km.
22. (b) −1% — Method: write each change as a multiplier and multiply them. A 10% fall is × 0.9 and a 10% rise is × 1.1. Working: 0.9 × 1.1 = 0.99, so the final price is 99% of the original, which is 1% less. Answer: an overall change of −1%. The distractors: 0% comes from assuming a 10% fall and a 10% rise cancel — they do not, because the rise is 10% of a smaller amount; +1% has the size right but the sign wrong, from reading the multiplier 0.99 as 1% above 1 instead of 1% below it; −2% comes from finding the 1% fall and then counting it once for each of the two changes.
23. (b) 7.2 m — Multiply the model wingspan by the scale factor: 15 × 48 = 720. This is in centimetres, and 720 cm = 7.2 m, since 1 m = 100 cm. Giving 0.31 m divides by the scale factor instead of multiplying (15 ÷ 48 ≈ 0.31), scaling the model down rather than the real aircraft up. Giving 72 m converts centimetres to metres by dividing by 10 instead of 100. Giving 0.72 m converts by dividing by 1000 instead of 100.
24. (d) 12 hours — Since time is inversely proportional to the number of installers, T = k/n. Using n = 4, T = 18: 18 = k ÷ 4, so k = 18 × 4 = 72. The equation is T = 72/n. When n = 6: T = 72 ÷ 6 = 12. Using the original number of installers instead of the new one gives T = 72 ÷ 4 = 18, the wrong value substituted. Treating more installers as needing more time, as if T were directly proportional to n, gives k = 18 ÷ 4 = 4.5 and then T = 4.5 × 6 = 27, the opposite relationship to the one described. Stopping at k = 72 and reporting it gives the time the job would take a single installer working alone — the constant still has to be divided by the new number of installers before it answers the question asked. With 6 installers, the job takes 12 hours.